A better idea than the Candidates

Sort:
PDubya

Here's how the World Championship challenger should be decided:

Let's keep the same qualification methods to get to the candidates. 

The candidates then play a 7-round Swiss, with white/black determined by ratings/selection method, i.e. give 4 whites to Top qualifiers. This could take place in Feb. 

Following the tournament, a month later, the top four compete in a semi-final, best of 6 games. A month later this is followed by a best of 8 challenger final. 

This way the challenger has proven themselves in both regular season qualification, swiss-play against top field, and two match play events. That way a worthy challenger is guaranteed. 

Having a single double-round tournament 8 months before the event doesn't really give us the best outcome. 

There's not nearly enough match-play in top level chess now, much like in Golf, so why not play events in that fashion in order to determine the best? 

PDubya

There's also the issue of why should the World Champion continue to automatically get to the final... I suppose it's a bit different with Chess, in that if you become World Champion in any given year it's likely you'll stay strong enough to be in the top 2 the following year, but that's not always the case. 

Imagine if Tiger Woods won the Masters one year, then every year after that he got to enter the final round tied for the lead. It's no wonder there's only been 16 undisputed world champions since 1886!

Legendary_Race_Rod

chessmicky wrote:

"Because they are the champion, just like boxing"

But boxing is a disreputable, dying sport, riddled with corruption. None of the really successful sports have retained the idea of a champion who "owns" the beld. There's a new Wimbleton Champion every year and tennis seems to be doing all right

Perhaps Boxing and Chess have more in common than you think!

Pulpofeira
Legendary_Race_Rod escribió:
chessmicky wrote:

"Because they are the champion, just like boxing"

But boxing is a disreputable, dying sport, riddled with corruption. None of the really successful sports have retained the idea of a champion who "owns" the beld. There's a new Wimbleton Champion every year and tennis seems to be doing all right

Perhaps Boxing and Chess have more in common than you think!

Of course, corruption affects to any sport what have a lot of followers and, therefore, a huge amount of interests involved. I laugh when football fans here say: "how can you be interested in cycling? They are all drug addicts and cheaters!"

downhand

What they do with boxing or tennis is completely irrelevant. Take a look at this book, I'd recommend the Appeal to Irrelevant Authority section:

www.bookofbadarguments.com

Other than that, I completely agree with @tigerprowl here:

... but because the organization took it back and then said, 'Come and get it again'.  That is tantamount to taking someone's yearly salary at the end of the year and saying, 'Now prove to us you earned that money last year'.  They earned it, it's theirs.